Back
1997(7) Supreme 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
N.S.M. Ahmad Jamalia Beevi -Appellant
versus
D.N. Shah -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5185 of 1997.
Decided on 30-7-1997.
Counsel for the Parties :
For The Appellant : M. Sundar and (R. Sudhinder) Advocate for Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For The Respondent : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate and R.A. Perumal, Advocate
Held : No argument would appear to be needed to show that the High Court misdirected itself and did not exercise a discretion properly. In spite of the fact that the High Court found that there was no merit in the civil revision petition filed by the tenant yet it have further time to the tenant to deposit the rent even modifying its earlier order dated September 27, 1995 requiring the tenant to pay Rs. 1,03,500/- and now requiring him to pay Rs. 1,10,100/-, when between these two dates ten months had passed. We are unable to comprehend as to what were the relevant considerations which led the High Court to grant further time to the tenant. The tenant had taken two pleas: (1) that on account of the marriage of his daughter he could not make arrangement to pay the rent and (2) that after July 1992 the sub tenant had directly paid rent to the appellant. Both these pleas are of no effect. That the tenant could not arrange finances on account of his daughter s marriage cannot be a ground to deny the landlord her due rent when the tenant himself had been collecting rent from the sub tenants and in case the sub tenant had themselves defaulted in payment of rent to the respondent he could well have proceeded against them under the Act. Equitable considerations have no place in a case like the present one and that too in face of the express provision of law. While the Act protects the tenant against the eviction and is a departure from the Transfer of Property Act. It is the bounden duty of the tenant to pay rent to the landlord regularly and not to commit default. No sufficient cause was shown by the respondent as to why he failed to pay or to deposit the rent as ordered. Even rent prior to July 1992 was not paid. The High Court was certainly in error in granting time to the tenant to deposit the rent. It did not exercise its jurisdiction properly as envisaged under Section 25 of the Act. (Para 8)
JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Leave granted.
2. The appellant is landlady. She is aggrieved by the order dated July 9, 1996 of the Madras High Court granting yet further time to the respondent tenant for depositing rent in spite of persistent default committed by him in violation of the provision of sub- section (1) of Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (for short, the Act ).
3. The appellant is the owner and landlady of property bearing No. 145 Linghi Chetty Street, Madras. She let out the name to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 4500/- with permission to sublet the same. The premises comprise of four independent shops. The appellant says the respondent is recovering enormous rent from these shops having sublet the same. It has come on record in respect of one shop that the respondent in realising Rs. 3000/- per month as rent. Since the respondent committed default in payment of rent from September 1990 the appellant served a notice dated September 23, 1991 on him demanding rent for the period from September 1, 1990 to August 31, 1991 amounting to Rs. 54,000/-. Respondent was told that in case he failed to pay rent proceeding for his eviction shall be instituted against him. In spite of the notice, the respondent did not pay the rent which led the appellant to file proceeding for his eviction under clause (1) of sub section (2) of Section 10 of the Act. That was in October 1991. Notice of filing of the eviction proceeding was issued to the respondent. He failed to respond to the same and an exparte order of eviction dated July 31, 1992 was passed against him by the Rent Controller. On an application filed by the respondent on August 22, 1992 exparte order of eviction was, However, set aside. In spite of pendency of these proceedings on the ground of default in payment of rent the respondent did not pay any rent in breach of the provisions of Section 11(1) of the Act. The appellant, therefore, filed an application under sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the Act requesting that she be put in possession of the suit premises.
4. At this stage we may set out the relevant provisions of the Act.
"10. Eviction of tenant.
(1) ...........................
(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied.
(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building, within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable. or
.................................................
the controller shall make an order directing the tenant to out the landlord in possession of the building and if Controller is not, so satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application :
Provided that in any case falling under clause (1) of the Controller is satisfied that the tenant s default to pay or tenant rent was not wilful, he may, not with standing anything contained in Section 11, give the tenant a reasonable time, not exceeding fifteen days, to pay or tender the rent due by him to the landlord upto the date of such payment or tender and on such payment or tender, the application shall be rejected.
Explanation. - For the purpose of this sub-section, default to pay or tender rent shall be construed as wilful, if the default by the tenant in the payment or tender of rent continues after the issue of two month s notice by the landlord claiming the rent.
Section 11. Payment or deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction. - (1) No tenant against whom an application for eviction has been made by a landlord under Section 10 shall be entitled to contest the application before the Controller under that section, or to prefer any appea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
